Predictions 2014: A Difficult Year To See

This post marks the 10th edition of my annual predictions – it’s quite possibly the only thing I’ve consistently done for a decade in my life (besides this site, of course, which is going into its 12th year).

But gazing into 2014 has been the hardest of the bunch – and not because the industry is getting so complicated. I’ve been mulling these predictions for months, yet one overwhelming storm cloud has been obscuring my otherwise consistent forecasting abilities. The subject of this cloud has nothing – directly – to do with digital media, marketing, technology or platform ecosystems – the places where I focus much of my writing. But while the topic is orthogonal at best, it’s weighing heavily on me.

So what’s making it harder than usual to predict what might happen over the coming year? In a phrase, it’s global warming. I know, that’s not remotely the topic of this site, nor is it in any way a subject I can claim even a modicum of expertise. But as I bend to the work of a new year in our industry, I can’t help but wonder if our efforts to create a better world through technology are made rather small when compared to the environmental alarm bells going off around the globe.

I’ve been worried about the effects of our increasingly technologized culture on the earth’s carefully balanced ecosystem for some time now. But, perhaps like you, I’ve kept it to myself, and assuaged my concerns with a vague sense that we’ll figure it out through a combination of policy, individual and social action, and technological solutions. Up until recently, I felt we had enough time to reverse the impact we’ve inflicted on our environment. It seemed we were figuring it out, slowly but surely. The world was waking up to the problem, new policies were coming online (new mileage requirements, the phase out of the incandescent bulb, etc). And I took my own incremental steps – installing a solar system that provides nearly 90% of our home’s energy, converting my heating to solar/electrical, buying a Prius for my kids.

But I’m not so sure this mix of individual action and policy is enough – and with every passing day, we seem to be heading toward a tipping point, one that no magic technological solution can undo.

If you’re wondering what’s made me feel this way, a couple of choice articles from 2013 (and there were too many to count) should do the trick. One “holy shit” moment for me was a piece on ocean acidification, relating scientific discoveries that the oceans are turning acidic at a pace faster than any time since a mass extinction event 300 million years ago. But that article is a puff piece compared to this downer, courtesy The Nation: The Coming Instant Planetary Emergency. I know – the article is published in a liberal publication, so pile on, climate deniers… Regardless, I suggest you read it. Or, if you prefer whistling past our collective graveyard, which feels like a reasonable alternative, spare yourself the pain. I can summarize it for you: Nearly every scientist paying attention has concluded global warming is happening far faster, and with far more devastating impact, than previously thought, and we’re very close to the point where events will create a domino effect – receding Arctic ice allowing for huge releases of super-greenhouse methane gases, for instance. In fact, we may well be past the point of “fixing” it, if we ever could.

And who wants to spend all day worrying about futures we can’t fix? That’s no fun, and it’s the opposite of why I got into this industry nearly 30 years ago. As Ben Horowitz pointed out recently, one key meaning of technology is “a better way of doing things.” So if we believe that, shouldn’t we bend our technologic infrastructure to the world’s greatest problem? If not – why not? Are the climate deniers right? I for one don’t believe they are. But I can’t prove they aren’t. So this constant existential anxiety grows within me – and if conversations with many others in our industry is any indication, I’m not alone.

In a way, the climate change issue reminds me of the biggest story inside our industry last year: Snowden’s NSA revelations. Both are so big, and so hard to imagine how an individual might truly effect change, that we collectively resort to gallows humor, and shuffle onwards, hoping things will work out for the best.

And yet somehow, this all leads me to my 2014 predictions. The past nine prediction posts have been, at their core, my own gut speaking (a full list is at the bottom of this post). I don’t do a ton of research before I sit down to write, it’s more of a zeitgeistian exposition. It includes my hopes and fears for our industry, an industry I believe to be among the most important forces on our planet. Last year, for example, I wrote my predictions based mainly on what I wished would happen, not what I thought realistically would.

For this year’s 2014 predictions, then, I’m going to once again predict what I hope will happen. You’ll see from the first one that I believe our industry, collectively, can and must take a lead role in addressing our “planetary emergency.” At least, I sure hope we will. For if not us…

1. 2014 is the year climate change goes from a political debate to a global force for unification and immediate action. It will be seen as the year the Internet adopted the planet as its cause.

Because the industry represents the new guard of power in our society, Internet, technology, and media leaders will take strong positions in the climate change debate, calling for dramatic and immediate action, including forming the equivalent of a “Manhattan Project” for technological solutions to all manner of related issues – transportation, energy, carbon sequestration, geoengineering, healthcare, economics, agriculture.

While I am skeptical of a technological “silver bullet” approach to solving our self-created problems, I also believe in the concept of “hybrid vigor” – of connecting super smart people across multiple disciplines to rapidly prototype new approaches to otherwise intractable problems. And I cannot imagine one company or government will solve the issue of climate change (no matter how many wind farms or autonomous cars Google might create), nor will thousands of well meaning but loosely connected organizations (or the UN, for that matter).

I can imagine that the processes, culture, and approaches to problem solving enabled by the Internet can be applied to the issue of climate change. The lessons of disruptors like Google, Twitter, and Amazon, as well as newer entrants like airbnb, Uber, and Dropbox, can be applied to solving larger problems than where to sleep, how to get a cab, or where and how our data are accessed. We need the best minds of our society focused on larger problems – but first, we need to collectively believe that problem is as large as it most likely is.

2014, I hope, is the year the problem births a real movement – a platform, if you will, larger than any one organization, one industry, or one political point of view. The only time we’ve seen a platform like that emerge is the Internet itself. So there’s a certain symmetry to the hypothesis – if we are to solve humankind’s most difficult problem, we’ll have to adopt the core principles and lessons of our most elegant and important creation: the Internet. The solution, if it is to come from us, will be native to the Internet. I can’t really say how, but I do know one thing: I want to be part of it, just like I wanted to be part of the Internet back in 1987.

I’ll admit, it’s kind of hard to write anything more after that. I mean, who cares if Facebook has a good or bad year if the apocalypse is looming? Well, it’s entirely possible that my #1 prediction doesn’t happen, and then how would that look, batting .000 for the year (I’ve been batting better than .500 over the past decade, after all)? To salvage some part of my dignity, I’m going to go ahead and try to prognosticate a bit closer to home for the next few items.

2. Automakers adopt a “bring your own” approach to mobile integration. The world of the automobile moves slowly. It can take years for a new model to move from design to prototype to commercially available model. Last year I asked a senior executive at a major auto manufacturer the age old question: “What business are you in?” His reply, after careful consideration, was this: “We are in the mobile experience business.” I somewhat expected that reply, so I followed up with another question: “How on earth will you compete with Apple and Google?” Somewhat exasperated, he said this was the existential question his company had to face.

2014 will be the year auto companies come to terms with this question. It won’t happen all at once, because nothing moves that fast in the auto industry. While most car companies have some kind of connectivity with smart phone platforms, for the most part they are pretty limited. Automakers find themselves in the same positions as carriers (an apt term, when you think about it) back at the dawn of the smart phone era – will they attempt to create their own interfaces for the phones they market, or will they allow third parties to own the endpoint relationship to consumers? It’s tempting for auto makers to think they can jump into the mobile user interface business, but I think they’re smart enough to know they can’t win there. Our mobile lives require an interface that understands us across myriad devices – the automobile is just one of those devices. The smartest car makers will realize this first, and redesign their “device platforms” to work seamlessly with whatever primary mobile UI a consumer picks. That means building a car UI not as an end into itself, but as a platform for others to build upon.

Remember, these are predictions I *hope* will happen. It’s entirely possible that automakers will continue the haphazard and siloed approach they’re currently taking with regard to mobile integration, simply because they lack conviction on whether or not they want to directly compete with Google and Apple for the consumer’s attention inside the car. Instead, they should focus on creating the best service possible that integrates and extends those already dominant platforms.

3. By year’s end, Twitter will be roundly criticized for doing basically what it did at the beginning of the year. The world loves a second act, and will demand one of Twitter now that the company is public. The company may make a spectacular acquisition or two (see below), but in the main, its moves in 2014 will likely be incremental. This is because the company has plenty of dry powder in the products and services it already has in its arsenal – it’ll roll out a full fledged exchange, a la FBX, it’ll roll out new versions of its core ad products (with a particular emphasis on video), it’ll create more media-like “events” across the service, it’ll continue its embrace of television and popular culture…in other words, it will consolidate the strengths it already has. And 12 months from now, everyone will be tweeting about how Twitter has run out of ideas. Sound familiar, Facebook?

Now this isn’t what I hope for the company to do, but I already wrote up my great desire for Twitter last year. Still waiting on that one (and I’m not sure it’s realistic).

4. Twitter and Apple will have their first big fight, most likely over an acquisition. Up till now, Twitter and Apple have been best of corporate friends. But in 2014, the relationship will fray, quite possibly because Apple comes to the realization it has to play in the consumer software and services world more than it has in the past. At the same time, there will be a few juicy M&A targets that Twitter has its eye on, targets that most likely are exactly what Apple covets as well. I’ll spare you the list of possible candidates, as most likely I’d miss the mark. But I’d expect entertainment to be the most hotly contested space.

5.Google will see its search related revenues slow, but will start to extract more revenues from its Android base. Search as we know it is moving to another realm (for more, see my post on Google Now). Desktop search revenues, long the cash cow of Google, will slow in 2014, and the company will be looking to replace them with revenues culled from its overall dominance in mobile OS distribution. I’m not certain how Google will do this – perhaps it will buy Microsoft’s revenue generating patents, or maybe it’ll integrate commerce into Google Now – but clearly Google needs another leg to its revenue stool. 2014 will be the year it builds one.

6. Google Glass will win – but only because Google licenses the tech, and a third party will end up making the version everyone wants. Google Glass has been lambasted as “Segway for your face” – and certainly the device is not yet a consumer hit. But a year from now, the $1500 price tag will come down by half or more, and Google will realize that the point isn’t to be in the hardware business, it’s to get Google Now to as many people as possible. So Google will license Glass sometime next year, and the real consumer accessory pros (Oakley? GoPro? Nike? Nest?!) will create a Glass everyone wants.

7. Facebook will buy something really big. My best guess? Dropbox. Facebook knows it’s become a service folks use, but don’t live on anymore. And it will be looking for ways to become more than just a place to organize a high school reunion or stay in touch with people you’d rather not talk to FTF. It wants and needs to be what its mission says it is: “to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.” The social graph is just part of that mission – Facebook needs a strong cloud service if it wants a shot at being a more important player in our lives. Something like Dropbox (or Box) is just the ticket. But to satisfy the egos and pocketbooks of those two players, Facebook will have to pay up big time. It may not be able to, or it may decide to look at Evernote instead. I certainly hope the company avoids the obvious but less-substantive play of Pinterest. I like Pinterest, but that’s not what Facebook needs right now.

As with Twitter, this prediction does not reflect my greatest hope for Facebook, but again, I wrote that last year, and again…oh never mind.

8. Overall, 2014 will be a great year for the technology and Internet industries, again, as measured in financial terms. There are dozens of good companies lined up for IPOs, a healthy appetite for tech plays in the markets, a strong secular trend in adtech in particular, and any number of “point to” successes from 2013. That strikes me as a recipe for a strong 2014. However, if I were predicting two years out, I’d leave you with this warning: Squirrel your nuts away in 2014. This won’t last forever.

24 thoughts on “Predictions 2014: A Difficult Year To See”

John as always thanks for starting the conversation… In terms of Google Glasses, I been saying for a while they don’t ever have to be a consumer product, they will make amazing tools for white and blue collar workers.. from Cops to Cooks.

I’m not quite sure how long it will take… and I didn’t thing it would take THIS long… but I’m convinced some understanding will arise very soon regarding just why the “monied Like button” (a viable one-click micropayment)… is such a big deal… why it requires a unified core… and why its of considerable public interest.

I’d also suggest that the Internet industry as a whole needs to play a responsible role here. It sometimes seems the focus of the industry is too focused on toys, entertainment and games…

Not that those are bad things… I love all of them (I’m an Xbox addict)…

Sorry I missed it. I’m pleased that some are starting to see the connection this needed institution has to both Doc Searls ideas re VRM as well as the work of David Brin and The Transparent Society. I’m grateful for their interest.

The collective force of the micropayment is a NEW capability in human history. This needs to be recognized. I’m convinced its a necessary tool for overcoming the consequences of the altruism dilemma… though not without risks.

Moreover the design of the ‘core’ I believe it requires has important implications for the viability of “Commons-oriented” interests which narrowly focused forces may not adequately address.

I’d like to see Adam Smith’s work revived. He not only believed in the importance of competition… but the need for a level playing field.

I made a payment prediction back in 2007 that a viable micropayment requires a core… and now have a patented model for this via a single provider and pending for multiple providers. I further suggested then and continue to suggest that this capability is a fundamental of speech vital especially in areas of public concern: charity, politics and journalism.

I’m represented by Perkins Coie (on their dime)… this isn’t a hypothetical… this is a needed institution. I look forward to the Internet industry addressing this responsibility soon.

“It sometimes seems the focus of the industry is too focused on toys, entertainment and games…”

Truth. There is far too big a % of resources/time/$$/talent spent on those things, and far too little spent on huge problems that will move the needle and improve lives for the majority of the world’s population.

“2014 is the year climate change goes from a political debate to a global force for unification and immediate action.”

I agree this is coming, but don’t think we’re quite there yet. 2016 would be my wild-ass-guess. BUT, I’m totally totally with you..we need this to happen (it can’t happen soon enough imho), and I want to be part of it.

John, thank you for the thought-provoking piece. As far as consensus about climate-change is concerned: Look at Germany, where I come from. People agree climate is changing, still the government is successfully blocking stricter regulations for cars’ carbon emissions as the car industry is economically important for the country (and BMW, Mercedes, Audi mainly manufacture big cars).
Even worse, sales in SUVs are on a record high, now they make 16 percent of all newly bought cars in Germany. So consensus does not necessarily help you to make decisions to change things.

1. Business
practices often need to change to keep up with the current market and website
marketing and SEO is no different. I now see where I need to adjust my own
process and strive harder to accomplish my goals. Thanks for publishing this.

John – Thanks for the interesting piece. I share your sentiments that we should all be worried about the “effects of our increasingly technologized culture on the earth’s carefully balanced ecosystem.” Consider the climate change that 300 million Americans, all middle-class when compared to the developing world, have already brought about to the planet. Now consider the environmental impact of welcoming 800 million more Chinese citizens to the middle class by 2025. Assuming that these individuals will exhibit the same cravings as middle class Americans, we will need to devote more of our already sparse land to beef production (and subsequently even more to agriculture, as 30 pounds of grain are needed to produce only 1 pound of beef) and produce more energy hungry and chemically harmful machines, such as refrigerators and air conditioners (to name a few). As a result, simply tackling inefficiencies – the mileage, incandescent bulbs, and other incremental fixes that you refer to – will not do enough to reverse our current course. Rather, societies need to think more about sustainable design as a whole, rather than an incremental add-on.

Technology helps facilitate sustainable design and you are correct in believing that the “processes, culture, and approaches to problem solving enabled by the Internet can be applied to the issue of climate change.” The sharing economy – companies such as Lyft, Couchsurfing, and eBay – reduce the need for products via sharing; car-sharing services, for example, often cite the number of cars their services have taken off of the road (estimated to be 90,000 to 130,000 as of 2010).

But technology also obfuscates the benefits of natural approaches to problem solving, such as with gray vs. green infrastructure. Societies often employ the former to tackle natural threats. However, levees, water treatment facilities, tunnels, and drains often cost communities a significant amount of money while the alternative can be less costly and more effective. Consider the water system in New York City; NYC relies on lower cost green infrastructure to provide fresh water to city residents – yes, the “secret ingredient” to NYC’s famous pizza relies on green, not gray, to keep it clean. Rather than build billion dollar water filtration plants, NYC has spent significantly less buying forest land north of the city in order to protect its watersheds. The trees in the Catskills and Croton River water sheds prevent harmful pollutants from getting into our waterways, ensure that groundwater supplies are replenished, and reduce flooding by preventing topsoil erosion. By buying the land, the city also prevents farmers and residential developers – harbingers of pesticides and pollutants – from encroaching on the reservoirs. Most recently, the city opted for $240mm in land acquisitions over 10 years over an $8bn filtration plant (excluding annual operating costs) to clean its water supply – and keep in mind, the billion dollars would have been footed by NYC residents through increased taxes and higher water and sewer fees.

While natural processes such as green infrastructure are important, I agree that, as a result of our current societal norms, technology systems are also needed to manage the environment. Along these lines, you are right that a distinct platform is needed, and I believe that this platform must revolve around closed loop systems. Society today is inefficient, with different industries and infrastructure built on top of one another rather than pieced together into a sustainable, closed-end loop. We focus on recycling and minimizing the damage we do to our ecosystems, rather than designing and manufacturing products that use our natural resources most efficiently – such as through upcycling. Consider the fact that 40% of food is wasted in the U.S. This 40% ends up in landfills where the decaying food releases methane (a harmful gas). However, the same composted food can be used as a highly efficient fertilizer (e.g. Terracycle), and use of such fertilizers could divert harmful runoff that is caused by chemical fertilizers. New York City just announced that it is now even using food waste to heat homes.

Such closed-loop systems are not only beneficial to the environment – they also make sound business sense. Some of the most innovative companies today are focused on sustainable capitalism, as they recognize the need to preserve the environment in order to stay in business. And most of us don’t realize that these companies produce the goods we use every day. Beverage (e.g. Coca Cola) and clothing (e.g. Nike) companies are focusing on water management, an essential component of their finished goods. Beer companies (e.g. Miller Coors) are looking into waste diversion and sustainable farming practices. And packaging companies (e.g. Ecovative) are searching for more sustainable and biodegradable materials.

Ultimately, I agree that the “mix of individual action and policy is not enough” and that “connecting super smart people across multiple disciplines to rapidly prototype new approaches to otherwise intractable problems” is the key to addressing climate change. The right team of “super smart” individuals will produce innovative policies and practices that transform how we design and construct our future society by considering both natural and technological solutions.